Senate voting has become rather farcical. At present, the options are:

• Place the number "1" in a single box above the line.
  
• Number every single box below the line.

Because numbering every box below the line is quite time-consuming - this election up to 110 numbers are required in some states - about 95% of all voters choose to vote above the line.

The problem here is that most people who vote above the line don't actually know to whom they are giving their second preferences. The voting tickets for the parties are the outcomes of negotiations amongst the faceless people of the parties, and the voting tickets are not easily available at the polling place for Federal elections (at least not without having to ask someone). Most people don't bother to examine the Senate ticket before voting above the line. Thus, our Senate voting is largely in the hands of the various parties.

We need some changes to Senate voting, so that the voters can cast a valid vote for whom they want more easily without having to number every single box below the line.

Here are my ideas for improving Senate voting.

• All group voting tickets should be displayed at every polling booth, or otherwise displayed in such a way as to be readily and discreetly accessible. Discretion is important to maintain the secrecy of the ballot.
  
• It should be possible to number as many boxes above the line as one wants. The "1" indicates the party ticket that is to be followed for blank boxes above the line, but any other boxes that are numbered above the line specifically override the party ticket. (The numbers are consecutive numbers starting from 1.)
  
• It should not be necessary to number all of the boxes below the line either. As long as there's at least as many boxes numbered as there are senate vacancies, the vote should be valid. What can happen here is that the vote can be exhausted when all of the numbered candidates are either elected or excluded, but that is not an issue. Indeed, this is preferable - your vote would no longer be used to elect a candidate that you really didn't want to elect, such as the one that you numbered 79 (out of 110) on the ballot paper.  (Again, the numbers are consecutive numbers starting from 1.)

There is one additional change that is needed:

• Change the layout of Senate ballot papers so that "above the line" can include multiple rows. This small but important change is needed so that Senate ballots do not need to be printed in an 8-point font. At present such ridiculously small fonts are needed because there can only be one line on a Senate ballot, this line can be quite long with lots of parties, and there is a technical limit to the length of the Senate ballot paper.

I think these changes would improve Senate voting greatly. It would take Senate voting out of the hands of the various parties and put it back in the hands of the people, where it belongs, with only modest changes to the existing voting system.

What are your thoughts on Senate voting?

Bam wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 11:32am:

The problem here is that most people who vote above the line don't actually know to whom they are giving their second preferences. The voting tickets for the parties are the outcomes of negotiations amongst the faceless people of the parties, and the voting tickets are not easily available at the polling place ?

What are you talking about?

Its your responsibility to FIND OUT - its all on the web site and in your letter box prior to the actual voting day.

You vote once every 3 years in federal elections and you cant be bothered writing 100 numbers down? Is that what you are saying?

How long does it take to write 100 numbers in boxes? 3 or 4 minutes?

If you want to distribute preferences YOUR WAY, then spend a few minutes doing it.

If you want another party to do it for you then inform yourself of their preference intentions.

Everything comes back to the voter

If a voter wishes to cast a donkey vote, ill informed vote or puppet vote then that is their choice on polling day.

What I suggest you do is register for a postal vote to be sent to your home. You then can have up to a few weeks to fill in the two ballot papers

And stop complaining about one the only democratic responsibilities that you have in this country

Group voting tickets are available online prior to the election and probably are available at the polling booth also. Given the amount of information in them if you leave it till then it is too late really.

I support options for multiple above the line votes, so long as it does not involve votes being discarded. For example, you could number ever box above the line. Or you could number some, and when your options run out it reverts to the preferences of your #1 choice.

However I suspect that would make things too complicated and lead to people's vote ending where they did not intend.

Only placing as many numbers as there are vacancies makes no sense at all. You could pick any arbitrary number. Are you suggesting there is something rational behind the choice of 6?

Optional preferential voting would make voting below the line less onerous and therefore more likely to be done.

I have already voted.

I voted below the line, there are 82 candidates in Qld.

Number 1....Socialist Equality

Number 82.....Family First

It didn't take all that long to google the ones that I was unfamiliar with. They usually have about six main topics/policies that they stand for, you can tell straight away if they'll be your first choice, in the middle or at the end.

It's easy and more people should take the time to do it.

You can then fill out your form online and print it to take along on voting day.

How to vote card for electing senators

http://senate.io/

Just get rid of the Senate.  It's "unrepresentative swill" anyway.

Swagman wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:

Just get rid of the Senate.  It's "unrepresentative swill" anyway.

the only state without an upper house is QLD.

there is your perfect proof for why such things are needed.  Joh would not have become the corrupt dictator he was with an upper hosue to keep him in check,

Chimp_Logic wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 11:40am:

Bam wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 11:32am: The problem here is that most people who vote above the line don't actually know to whom they are giving their second preferences. The voting tickets for the parties are the outcomes of negotiations amongst the faceless people of the parties, and the voting tickets are not easily available at the polling place ? What are you talking about? Its your responsibility to FIND OUT - its all on the web site and in your letter box prior to the actual voting day.

I have never seen a complete list of every registered party's senate preferences ever delivered to my letter box. Furthermore, with 36 parties there would be over 50 preferences lists to go through, with over 100 options in each. Who really wants to look through all of that just because the system is broken?

Why defend the current system? It has flaws. Why blame the voter when the system has problems?


Quote:

You vote once every 3 years in federal elections and you cant be bothered writing 100 numbers down? Is that what you are saying? How long does it take to write 100 numbers in boxes? 3 or 4 minutes?

These numbers have to be numbered correctly in accordance with the law or else the senate vote is not valid. I understand that a few sequencing errors are allowed before the vote is declared to be informal. However, just to make sure it does take quite a while to number all of those boxes and make sure that every consecutive integer from 1 to 110 (or whatever the maximum is) appears exactly once.


Quote:

If you want to distribute preferences YOUR WAY, then spend a few minutes doing it.

So why defend the current system? Again, you're blaming the voter here.


Quote:

If you want another party to do it for you then inform yourself of their preference intentions.

So why can't we do that by voting ABOVE the line as well? I suggested as much in my OP.


Quote:

And stop complaining about one the only democratic responsibilities that you have in this country

I have every right to complain about a system that does not work as well as it should, and I won't stop pointing out the flaws just because you say I should.

Antony Green, the ABC's resident psephologist, happens to agree with me on the need to fix the Senate voting system. In an interview on the 29th, he spent some time discussing the preference flows that would allow Pauline Hanson to be elected on preference flows with a 2% primary vote.

freediver wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 11:54am:

Group voting tickets are available online prior to the election and probably are available at the polling booth also. Given the amount of information in them if you leave it till then it is too late really. I support options for multiple above the line votes, so long as it does not involve votes being discarded. For example, you could number ever box above the line. Or you could number some, and when your options run out it reverts to the preferences of your #1 choice.

Indeed, this is what I wrote for above the line voting in my OP. I think it would have wide support in the community. It would probably take an election at which multiple micro-party candidates were elected to compel the politicians to think more carefully about the workings of Federal Senate elections.


Quote:

However I suspect that would make things too complicated and lead to people's vote ending where they did not intend.

If they numbered all of the boxes - either above the line or below - this would not be a problem.


Quote:

Only placing as many numbers as there are vacancies makes no sense at all. You could pick any arbitrary number. Are you suggesting there is something rational behind the choice of 6?

There are six vacancies, so choose at least six candidates. It's basically optional preferential voting. Of course, we need not have this. We haven't had optional preferential voting at Federal elections for many years.

Have we ever had OPV in federal elections?

One problem with ranking above the line is that under the current system, not every candidate has a ticket and a box above the line. I think it is because they are single independent candidates.

Bam wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 8:22pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 11:40am: Bam wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 11:32am: The problem here is that most people who vote above the line don't actually know to whom they are giving their second preferences. The voting tickets for the parties are the outcomes of negotiations amongst the faceless people of the parties, and the voting tickets are not easily available at the polling place ? What are you talking about? Its your responsibility to FIND OUT - its all on the web site and in your letter box prior to the actual voting day. I have never seen a complete list of every registered party's senate preferences ever delivered to my letter box. Furthermore, with 36 parties there would be over 50 preferences lists to go through, with over 100 options in each. Who really wants to look through all of that just because the system is broken? Why defend the current system? It has flaws. Why blame the voter when the system has problems?

I agree Bam
Your average punter is not going to spend their time numbering every box. As a result the voters preferences are not chosen by the voter and this is undemocratic.

Part of the responsibility of a democracy is to make it easy to get the voters wishes. It is a cop out to suggest that because a voter isn't prepared to individually number over 100 boxes their preferences should be decided for them

I always vote below the line.

This election will be no different in that respect.

I am working on my above the line voting guide for this election at the moment.

Here is one I prepared earlier:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/senate-group-voting-tickets-above-line-guide.html

the complexity is the 100 candidates.  should there not be some kind of vetting system perhaps? If not the only option for the vast majority of people is ABOVE THE LINE or optional preferential voting so you can vote for say the first 10.

Given that six spots are up for grabs, it is only natural that there are a lot of candidates.

And there is a vetting process. You have to meet certain requirements before getting your name on the ballot paper.

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 1:03pm:

Given that six spots are up for grabs, it is only natural that there are a lot of candidates. And there is a vetting process. You have to meet certain requirements before getting your name on the ballot paper.

yeah... Australian citizen over 18yo and not currently in jail or bankrupt.  not exactly a 'vetting' process.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 1:23pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 1st, 2013 at 1:03pm: Given that six spots are up for grabs, it is only natural that there are a lot of candidates. And there is a vetting process. You have to meet certain requirements before getting your name on the ballot paper. yeah... Australian citizen over 18yo and not currently in jail or bankrupt.  not exactly a 'vetting' process.

Add to that the ability to pay the registration fee, somewhere around $2000 IIRC.

I think some of these candidates are there for no other reason than to harvest preferences. I'm especially suspicious of parties with "Liberal" or "Labor" in their name, as they may be confused with the major parties.

If we could number groups as we wished, we may see a reduction of candidates if the preference-harvesting candidates are made irrelevant.

freediver wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 9:31pm:

Have we ever had OPV in federal elections?

I'm not sure, but I'm sure I've seen the exhaustion of preferences at some point in the context of Federal HoR elections.


Quote:

One problem with ranking above the line is that under the current system, not every candidate has a ticket and a box above the line. I think it is because they are single independent candidates.

If we mandate a box above the line, we should also make other changes so that numbers above the line count. Either we could mandate the submission of group voting tickets (and candidates without group tickets are excluded), or the lowest-numbered candidate with a group ticket is the ticket that gets used, or if a candidate has no group ticket it is necessary to number all the boxes. On the whole, it would probably be easier if there is OPV above and below the line.

Bam wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 8:27pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 1st, 2013 at 1:23pm: freediver wrote on Sep 1st, 2013 at 1:03pm: Given that six spots are up for grabs, it is only natural that there are a lot of candidates. And there is a vetting process. You have to meet certain requirements before getting your name on the ballot paper. yeah... Australian citizen over 18yo and not currently in jail or bankrupt.  not exactly a 'vetting' process. Add to that the ability to pay the registration fee, somewhere around $2000 IIRC. I think some of these candidates are there for no other reason than to harvest preferences. I'm especially suspicious of parties with "Liberal" or "Labor" in their name, as they may be confused with the major parties. If we could number groups as we wished, we may see a reduction of candidates if the preference-harvesting candidates are made irrelevant.

the $2000 fee is also NOT a vetting process.  Not that I think we could safely have one anyhow.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 8:37pm:

the $2000 fee is also NOT a vetting process.  Not that I think we could safely have one anyhow.

Agreed - I only listed it for completeness.

My OP was inspired by an interview with Antony Green on the ABC. He has also posted an article on ABC Online on 29 August expressing similar ideas to improve the system. (Look for the article "Senate voting threatens more than our eyesight".) I'll post a couple of paragraphs below and comment on them.

Quote:

My concern is that the farce of the 2013 Senate election may produce the wrong sort of change, where the existing players get together and simply make it impossible for the little parties to grow or get elected by introducing threshold quotas.

(Without checking, I think a threshold quota is a minimum percentage of the vote that a party or candidate can receive to be eligible to be elected. In the NZ parliament which has proportional representation, the threshold is four percent.)

Quote:

The better alternative is to do what NSW did after the 1999 debacle, to abolish between-ticket preferences, but allow voters to express their own preferences for parties above the line on the ballot paper. Preferences are moved back into the hands of voters where they belong, and parties that campaign for votes with how-to-vote material can try to influence preferences, but parties that don't campaign for votes lose control of their preferences.

Green is suggesting that we abolish tickets completely, rather than using the #1 ticket as the default as I suggested. If optional preferential voting is also implemented below the line, a similar system is needed above the line, so that the number of candidates numbered above the line is at least equal to the number of vacancies. On the other hand, it would explode the below-the-line candidate count.

Do we really need below-the-line candidate lists at all?

We could make a compelling case to abolish below-the-line voting. We should consider taking a look at other voting systems around the world. Many countries with a bicameral system have the equivalent of a Senate with proportional representation. In many of those systems, the voters vote for parties and not individual candidates. Germany has this kind of system for the proportional representation - vote for the party, and if the party meets a threshold their candidates get elected.

(The German and New Zealand parliaments are unicameral with local seats and list seats, such that the parliament overall has proportional representation. Governments by coalitions are the norm because it is rare for one party to exceed 50%.)

Quote:

As a minimum, the Victorian Legislative Council system should be copied. Voters are only required to give as many preferences below the line as there are vacancies, five in the Victorian case. This is much fairer than the endless lists of preferences required in the Senate.

I suggested exactly the same idea here (see OP). It is a natural extension of optional preferential voting.

i dont understand the voting sheet so i just draw a dick on it

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 1:54pm:

Number 1....Socialist Equality Number 82.....Family First

A neat summary of the progressive mindset.

Soren wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 10:57am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 1:54pm: Number 1....Socialist Equality Number 82.....Family First A neat summary of the progressive mindset.

The new buzz word of the sheeples.

JC Denton wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 9:32am:

i dont understand the voting sheet so i just draw a dick on it

That's really silly. Only the vote counters see it but none of the politicians.
And the vote counters don't care either way. Whatever you draw or write or leave it blank - it's just a donkey vote.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 11:07am:

Soren wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 10:57am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 1:54pm: Number 1....Socialist Equality Number 82.....Family First A neat summary of the progressive mindset. The new buzz word of the sheeples.

Sorry - the extreme, fringe looney left mindset.

Soren wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 11:08am:

JC Denton wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 9:32am: i dont understand the voting sheet so i just draw a dick on it That's really silly. Only the vote counters see it but none of the politicians. And the vote counters don't care either way. Whatever you draw or write or leave it blank - it's just a donkey vote.

Incorrect. Spoiling the ballot paper in these ways is an informal vote. The donkey vote is a valid vote where the boxes are simply numbered in the same order they appear on the ballot paper.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4] etc.
Or it can be from the bottom.

Because a few percent of the voters do vote this way, having the top or bottom position on the paper is highly prized.

Bam wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 9:28am:

My OP was inspired by an interview with Antony Green on the ABC. He has also posted an article on ABC Online on 29 August expressing similar ideas to improve the system. (Look for the article "Senate voting threatens more than our eyesight".) I'll post a couple of paragraphs below and comment on them. Quote: My concern is that the farce of the 2013 Senate election may produce the wrong sort of change, where the existing players get together and simply make it impossible for the little parties to grow or get elected by introducing threshold quotas. (Without checking, I think a threshold quota is a minimum percentage of the vote that a party or candidate can receive to be eligible to be elected. In the NZ parliament which has proportional representation, the threshold is four percent.) [quote]The better alternative is to do what NSW did after the 1999 debacle, to abolish between-ticket preferences, but allow voters to express their own preferences for parties above the line on the ballot paper. Preferences are moved back into the hands of voters where they belong, and parties that campaign for votes with how-to-vote material can try to influence preferences, but parties that don't campaign for votes lose control of their preferences.

Green is suggesting that we abolish tickets completely, rather than using the #1 ticket as the default as I suggested. If optional preferential voting is also implemented below the line, a similar system is needed above the line, so that the number of candidates numbered above the line is at least equal to the number of vacancies. On the other hand, it would explode the below-the-line candidate count.

Do we really need below-the-line candidate lists at all?

We could make a compelling case to abolish below-the-line voting. We should consider taking a look at other voting systems around the world. Many countries with a bicameral system have the equivalent of a Senate with proportional representation. In many of those systems, the voters vote for parties and not individual candidates. Germany has this kind of system for the proportional representation - vote for the party, and if the party meets a threshold their candidates get elected.

(The German and New Zealand parliaments are unicameral with local seats and list seats, such that the parliament overall has proportional representation. Governments by coalitions are the norm because it is rare for one party to exceed 50%.)

Quote:

As a minimum, the Victorian Legislative Council system should be copied. Voters are only required to give as many preferences below the line as there are vacancies, five in the Victorian case. This is much fairer than the endless lists of preferences required in the Senate.

I suggested exactly the same idea here (see OP). It is a natural extension of optional preferential voting.
[/quote]

what is inherently wrong with a threshold quota?  we have seen examples (Fielding for example) where a senator gets elected on little more than his family and friends votes. I don't see a threshold as inherently bad although as usual, the devil is in the details.

Bam wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 11:24am:

Soren wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 11:08am: JC Denton wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 9:32am: i dont understand the voting sheet so i just draw a dick on it That's really silly. Only the vote counters see it but none of the politicians. And the vote counters don't care either way. Whatever you draw or write or leave it blank - it's just a donkey vote. Incorrect. Spoiling the ballot paper in these ways is an informal vote. The donkey vote is a valid vote where the boxes are simply numbered in the same order they appear on the ballot paper. [1] [2] [3] [4] etc. Or it can be from the bottom. Because a few percent of the voters do vote this way, having the top or bottom position on the paper is highly prized.

some analysts have suggested that donkey voters are more liked to be lower socio-economic groups and therefore more likely to be labor supporters.  The donkey-voter will therefore disadvantage the labor candidate unless they get the #1 position.

If Arthur Sinodinos loses out to Pauline Hanson because of preferences, then Senate voting is most definitely a farce!

viewpoint wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 11:48am:

If Arthur Sinodinos loses out to Pauline Hanson because of preferences, then Senate voting is most definitely a farce!

When Adam Bandt loses his seat to labor despite having a health primary vote lead, it too will be a farce.

but I will laugh and laugh and laugh at watching a minor party executed by the very voting system that usually gives them an unhealthy level of influence.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 11:40am:

Bam wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 11:24am: Soren wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 11:08am: JC Denton wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 9:32am: i dont understand the voting sheet so i just draw a dick on it That's really silly. Only the vote counters see it but none of the politicians. And the vote counters don't care either way. Whatever you draw or write or leave it blank - it's just a donkey vote. Incorrect. Spoiling the ballot paper in these ways is an informal vote. The donkey vote is a valid vote where the boxes are simply numbered in the same order they appear on the ballot paper. [1] [2] [3] [4] etc. Or it can be from the bottom. Because a few percent of the voters do vote this way, having the top or bottom position on the paper is highly prized. some analysts have suggested that donkey voters are more liked to be lower socio-economic groups and therefore more likely to be labor supporters.  The donkey-voter will therefore disadvantage the labor candidate unless they get the #1 position.

Conjecture built on speculation doesn't make it true, and this is largely irrelevant in the context of Senate voting where a simple "1" in one box above the line is all it takes to cast a valid vote. About 90% to 95% of people vote above the line (AEC) with a tendency for more to do so in states with more below-the-line candidates.

Bam wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 12:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 11:40am: Bam wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 11:24am: Soren wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 11:08am: JC Denton wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 9:32am: i dont understand the voting sheet so i just draw a dick on it That's really silly. Only the vote counters see it but none of the politicians. And the vote counters don't care either way. Whatever you draw or write or leave it blank - it's just a donkey vote. Incorrect. Spoiling the ballot paper in these ways is an informal vote. The donkey vote is a valid vote where the boxes are simply numbered in the same order they appear on the ballot paper. [1] [2] [3] [4] etc. Or it can be from the bottom. Because a few percent of the voters do vote this way, having the top or bottom position on the paper is highly prized. some analysts have suggested that donkey voters are more liked to be lower socio-economic groups and therefore more likely to be labor supporters.  The donkey-voter will therefore disadvantage the labor candidate unless they get the #1 position. Conjecture built on speculation doesn't make it true, and this is largely irrelevant in the context of Senate voting where a simple "1" in one box above the line is all it takes to cast a valid vote. About 90% to 95% of people vote above the line (AEC) with a tendency for more to do so in states with more below-the-line candidates.

I didn't say it was relevant, only that it is interesting. And conjecture based on detailed research also does not make it implicitly wrong.  It was merely an observation that some researchers considered the donkey vote to be more harmful to the labor party because donkey voters tend to be from lower socio-economic levels.

I don't know what you do to make senate voting simpler although I do like the idea of voting for parties rather than candidates.  The only caveat is that the parties would be required to nominate their candidates in advance and not be able to change them afterwards.  That would be a backdoor method of electing a hated and unelectable candidate.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 11:37am:

Bam wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 9:28am: Quote: My concern is that the farce of the 2013 Senate election may produce the wrong sort of change, where the existing players get together and simply make it impossible for the little parties to grow or get elected by introducing threshold quotas. (Without checking, I think a threshold quota is a minimum percentage of the vote that a party or candidate can receive to be eligible to be elected. In the NZ parliament which has proportional representation, the threshold is four percent.) what is inherently wrong with a threshold quota?  we have seen examples (Fielding for example) where a senator gets elected on little more than his family and friends votes. I don't see a threshold as inherently bad although as usual, the devil is in the details.

A threshold quota is unnecessary with a preferential voting system. Exclusion thresholds are used in first-past-the-post voting systems. They do not work as well with preferential voting.

Once the candidates with a quota are elected, the remaining candidates would be excluded starting with the candidate with the fewest votes. This applies even without preferential voting. If there's no ticket voting (which we have now), this will by nature give the same result much of the time as the artifice of arbitrary thresholds for exclusion.

If there was an arbitrary threshold, there is also the possibility that none of the remaining candidates has enough of a surplus to remain in the count. If the threshold is 1/7 (14.29%) and there was a threshold of 1/28 (3.57%), it only takes a number of remaining candidates that is one greater than this ratio (28/7 + 1 = 5 here) for the possibility to exist that none of them have a ratio.

If we have full above-the-line preferential voting, microparties would have to campaign for votes. They would not have the resources to hand out HTV cards at every polling place so there would be fewer of them.

Another factor to consider is that the election of minor parties like FFP or DLP only occurs rarely. Only for the final seat in each state does a candidate from a minor party have a chance of winning. Only twice has a minor party candidate won a Senate seat in 48 Senate contests with six-seat Senate contests (since 1990), both in Victoria. Fielding of FFP won in 2004 and Madigan from the DLP won in 2010.

What really slows things down for vote counters and scrutineers is when people number all the boxes, and one or two of the numbers are difficult to read. They waste a lot of time trying to decide if its informal or not. Some 7's look like 1's. Some 4's look like 9's etc.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 12:58pm:

I don't know what you do to make senate voting simpler although I do like the idea of voting for parties rather than candidates.  The only caveat is that the parties would be required to nominate their candidates in advance and not be able to change them afterwards.  That would be a backdoor method of electing a hated and unelectable candidate.

I've noticed that some parties (ALP, Greens, Australian Democrats) nominate up to six candidates, even though there is no way all would be elected. I suspect this is so the list does double duty of a party list of backup candidates to fill casual vacancies. The Coalition also do it but not in all states.

Bam wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 7:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 12:58pm: I don't know what you do to make senate voting simpler although I do like the idea of voting for parties rather than candidates.  The only caveat is that the parties would be required to nominate their candidates in advance and not be able to change them afterwards.  That would be a backdoor method of electing a hated and unelectable candidate. I've noticed that some parties (ALP, Greens, Australian Democrats) nominate up to six candidates, even though there is no way all would be elected. I suspect this is so the list does double duty of a party list of backup candidates to fill casual vacancies. The Coalition also do it but not in all states.

How is that any different from the other 94 losing candidates only 2 or 3 of which were ever in the hunt?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 11:40am:

Bam wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 11:32am: The problem here is that most people who vote above the line don't actually know to whom they are giving their second preferences. The voting tickets for the parties are the outcomes of negotiations amongst the faceless people of the parties, and the voting tickets are not easily available at the polling place ? What are you talking about? Its your responsibility to FIND OUT - its all on the web site and in your letter box prior to the actual voting day. ...

Is that a realistic expectation? I've just taken a look at the list of NSW senate candidates; it looks like I have 43 parties, plus independents. 110 candidates in all.

Presumably, you have the necessary information to hand. I certainly haven't been provided with it. Enlighten me.

# wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 12:32pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 11:40am: Bam wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 11:32am: The problem here is that most people who vote above the line don't actually know to whom they are giving their second preferences. The voting tickets for the parties are the outcomes of negotiations amongst the faceless people of the parties, and the voting tickets are not easily available at the polling place ? What are you talking about? Its your responsibility to FIND OUT - its all on the web site and in your letter box prior to the actual voting day. ... Is that a realistic expectation? I've just taken a look at the list of NSW senate candidates; it looks like I have 43 parties, plus independents. 110 candidates in all. Presumably, you have the necessary information to hand. I certainly haven't been provided with it. Enlighten me.

Which is why I support Optional Preferential Voting.  you find out about the handful you care for and preference then accordingly and forget the rest.

43 parties, two unnamed groups, plus four independents. I can't realistically get a decent grasp of all that. For the first time in my life, I'll have to vote above the line. From what I've seen, the Pirate Party looks the go for me.

I'd rather see parties answer multiple-choice questions on issues of the day, so we have a realistic chance of ranking them according to our own preferences. It's futile trying to figure out what they're really on about from a bunch of weasel words in their platforms.

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 3:06pm:

I'd rather see parties answer multiple-choice questions on issues of the day, so we have a realistic chance of ranking them according to our own preferences. It's futile trying to figure out what they're really on about from a bunch of weasel words in their platforms.

A little like 30 questions of Vote Compass, but across more parties and perhaps with more questions (I would have 50). Imagine if it then gave a ranked list of parties, sorted by score, that you can then use to rank the parties in order of voting preference. Sounds like an interesting idea.

But that would be policy-based, and that's not what politics is all about.   :)

Bam wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 3:51pm:

... But that would be policy-based, and that's not what politics is all about.   :)

I do wonder about all those micro-parties. Are they dinkum or just intended to confuse? It certainly worked on me!

You're right though. It would probably end up a lot like one of those online matchmaking services. Both sides fill in their questionnaire and the software picks the best match.

My problem is that I came out to the Left of the Greens on Vote Compass. Maybe I don't have a match. Matchless!

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 9:08pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 5th, 2013 at 3:51pm: ... But that would be policy-based, and that's not what politics is all about.   :) I do wonder about all those micro-parties. Are they dinkum or just intended to confuse? It certainly worked on me!

Many of these parties exist for the sole purpose of harvesting preferences from above-the-line voters. One of them is known as the Alliance. They are puppet parties of Family First.


Quote:

You're right though. It would probably end up a lot like one of those online matchmaking services. Both sides fill in their questionnaire and the software picks the best match.

It would need a disclaimer, along the lines of being a guide and to encourage voters to make up their own minds. It could serve as an effective starting point to indicate parties that are worthy of further policy investigation.


Quote:

My problem is that I came out to the Left of the Greens on Vote Compass. Maybe I don't have a match. Matchless!

Vote Compass only had three parties represented and does not have a sufficiently broad coverage of policy areas in its questionnaire.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 11:37am:

what is inherently wrong with a threshold quota?  we have seen examples (Fielding for example) where a senator gets elected on little more than his family and friends votes. I don't see a threshold as inherently bad although as usual, the devil is in the details.

Just a small point with the threshold quota: the Nationals typically get only about four per cent of the vote.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 12:40pm:

# wrote on Sep 4th, 2013 at 12:32pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 11:40am: Bam wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 11:32am: The problem here is that most people who vote above the line don't actually know to whom they are giving their second preferences. The voting tickets for the parties are the outcomes of negotiations amongst the faceless people of the parties, and the voting tickets are not easily available at the polling place ? What are you talking about? Its your responsibility to FIND OUT - its all on the web site and in your letter box prior to the actual voting day. ... Is that a realistic expectation? I've just taken a look at the list of NSW senate candidates; it looks like I have 43 parties, plus independents. 110 candidates in all. Presumably, you have the necessary information to hand. I certainly haven't been provided with it. Enlighten me. Which is why I support Optional Preferential Voting.  you find out about the handful you care for and preference then accordingly and forget the rest.

I'm considering it too. If we could vote for parties above the line with as many numbers as we want, it would make Senate voting better. I expect this election to elect another minor party candidate, perhaps even two (not counting Xenophon). Watch Queensland and Victoria.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 11:40am:

Bam wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 11:32am: The problem here is that most people who vote above the line don't actually know to whom they are giving their second preferences. The voting tickets for the parties are the outcomes of negotiations amongst the faceless people of the parties, and the voting tickets are not easily available at the polling place ? What are you talking about? Its your responsibility to FIND OUT - its all on the web site and in your letter box prior to the actual voting day. You vote once every 3 years in federal elections and you cant be bothered writing 100 numbers down? Is that what you are saying? How long does it take to write 100 numbers in boxes? 3 or 4 minutes? If you want to distribute preferences YOUR WAY, then spend a few minutes doing it. If you want another party to do it for you then inform yourself of their preference intentions. Everything comes back to the voter If a voter wishes to cast a donkey vote, ill informed vote or puppet vote then that is their choice on polling day. What I suggest you do is register for a postal vote to be sent to your home. You then can have up to a few weeks to fill in the two ballot papers And stop complaining about one the only democratic responsibilities that you have in this country

It's chimp logic like that which doesn't take human nature into account and attempts to paint people who find it difficult to navigate an unnecessarily complex process as ignorant and absolve any guilt that might exist by the knowledge that the process is designed to be confusing, having the statistical evidence to prove it. A rational polity would make the process as user friendly as possible.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO FEEL GUILTY ABOUT BEING HUMAN, SPEAK OUT NOW BEFORE SHAME IS AGAIN USED TO SUBVERT, AS IT WAS FOR smacking HUNDREDS OF YEARS UNDER THE CHURCHES!

unrepresentative swill